Latest McCann suspect?

Thanks to Twitter -

If it were not too tasteless we might have a competition for the next type of oddball supposedly hanging around that night in PDL, who might have, but didn't, abduct or kill and abduct Madeleine. Naturally our tabloid press, encouraged by the Pink Pussycat, will present him, or how about a her? or a couple? as the latest unofficial leak from Scotland Yard. We've had false charity collectors, burglars, paedophiles, cleaners, and someone wanting to obtain a child of his/her own the quick way. We haven't had a mentally deranged wildly delusional person yet have we?

comperedna wrote:If it were not too tasteless we might have a competition for the next type of oddball supposedly hanging around that night in PDL, who might have, but didn't, abduct or kill and abduct Madeleine. Naturally our tabloid press, encouraged by the Pink Pussycat, will present him, or how about a her? or a couple? as the latest unofficial leak from Scotland Yard.  We've had false charity collectors, burglars, paedophiles, cleaners, and someone wanting to obtain a child of his/her own the quick way. We haven't had a mentally deranged wildly delusional person yet have we?

They're no doubt saving up The Prophet of PDL, with his turban and his pole with a light on the end, for the big anniversary.

comperedna wrote:If it were not too tasteless we might have a competition for the next type of oddball supposedly hanging around that night in PDL, who might have, but didn't, abduct or kill and abduct Madeleine. Naturally our tabloid press, encouraged by the Pink Pussycat, will present him, or how about a her? or a couple? as the latest unofficial leak from Scotland Yard.  We've had false charity collectors, burglars, paedophiles, cleaners, and someone wanting to obtain a child of his/her own the quick way. We haven't had a mentally deranged wildly delusional person yet have we?

My first thoughts on the possible identity of this, 'mentally deranged wildly delusional person' even fitted the frame in as much as he's dead....


Nero!  



Trouble is JT never mentioned anything about ringlets, a beard and the abductor she described had a body... bugger it.

    

Kate Healy and Gerald Mccann and Robert Murat remain the only official suspects of which there is no evidence against Murat other than tanners lies.

The evidence of the dogs,the Gasper statements and the countless contradictions in the mccann and tapas statements remain compelling arguments the mccanns should face a case in Court.

snowflake wrote:    

Whenever I watch the McCanns it happens to me too, Snowflake. No need to feel embarrassed.

Claudia79 wrote:

snowflake wrote:    

Whenever I watch the McCanns it happens to me too, Snowflake. No need to feel embarrassed.

I'm not.  

Welcome back Snowflake. We thought you'd deserted us!

Quick, before she goes .


Snowflake.......you say you think Madeleine was abducted ....can you tell us what proof you have that she was.

'where is the child'.......that's not an answer snowflake either.

snowflake wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

snowflake wrote:    

Whenever I watch the McCanns it happens to me too, Snowflake. No need to feel embarrassed.

I'm not.  

I'm glad. People get used to almost anything.

Those that support child neglect will never be able to hold the high ground.Infact they are most likely to get rooted in the lowest trench from where there is no escape.

Surely we are due another suspect. Some poor person and their family to be dragged through the papers.

Of all the things that don't add up for me in this case ...is ..why would you say it was safe to leave your children in a space alone ..then the first thing you shout is taken ...abduction. Something very wrong about that .

This one..............

It really isn't me, is it? Sometimes I begin to doubt my sanity! The whole 'New Review and New Investigation' of this case has been taking crazy turns for some years now, and we are all in fantasyland, despite many genuinely obvious 'leads' if nothing else, sticking out a mile! I am with Panda and others in that I wihsh NO MORE UK MONEY should be wasted if Scotland Yard is merely going to fart about on the periphery looking at stuff which was previously considered by the PJ and rejected as impausible. impossible, irrelevant etc etc... What DID happen is what people want to know, not what might be convenient if it had happened.

Initially Andy Redwood appeared to be working on the obviously false hypothesis of abduction of a live child by a stranger, for which there is no evidence at all that I have read about. Now I hear, via a note in the Guardian, which I have not read, that he is, after all, considering the disappearnace from the flat of a sadly dead child! This is not, I think because of all the evidence of a dead child having been in that flat for at least an hour or two to allow the smell of cadaverine and putrescine to develop. No, it is because IF some deadbeat HAD got into flat 5A to steal something, and had woken up Madeleine, in shutting her up, he might have accidentally smothered her. WHAT NONSENSE! There is no time slot for it to happen in for one thing. People were bobbing up and down all around checking on the children every few minutes, or at least checking on Madeleine! No-one mentioned checking on the other children it seems.

There was no strange unofficial intruder, and abduction does not mean removal of a body, Mr Redwood. If a body was removed by some stranger it was removed on the orders of someone who knew it was there, and wanted it gone and hidden away for reasons best known to him/herself.

Like you "comperedna" I sometime begin to doubt my sanity regarding this new investigation. My understanding of "abduct" is to carry someone off using force. Given that there was no evidence of an abduction in the first place but there was evidence of cadaverine, "force" would not be required to remove Madeleine's little dead body from the apartment. As far as the cost goes, all the money being spent by British taxpayers on this new investigation, not to mention the money which was donated to the "fund", talk about throwing good money after bad when the Portuguese evidence is being ignored by SY!!!!!!

Dont think the Portuguese evidence is being ignored.On the contrary Andy seems to be picking it off and reinventing it.
Blinking ludicrous it is.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Welcome back Snowflake. We thought you'd deserted us!

Thank you.
No, not at all. pop in now and then.

kitti wrote:Quick, before she goes .


Snowflake.......you say you think Madeleine was abducted ....can you tell us what proof you have that she was.

Why ask me?

Because YOU keep saying she was abducted so I want to know what evidence you think there is to support this.

kitti wrote:Because YOU keep saying she was abducted so I want to know what evidence you think there is to support this.

Cos the McCanns TOLD her!

Like they 'told' their CR lawyer, Isobel M, who had to concede and retract her 'evidence', in public, in a High court, that there was actually NO 'evidence' that Madeleine had been 'abducted'

She had said in her sworn affadavit that 'Madeleine was abducted' but conceded she had absolutely no proof of this other than the McCanns had TOLD her this.

Very, very, embarrassing for her in a High Court room to have to admit to that!

And since that date, of the admission from IM, Farter Crooks have NEVER again stated that Madeleine 'WAS ABDUCTED'

Even the McCanns own lawyers will NOT, ever again, say 'Madeleine WAS abducted'

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PROOF THAT IS THE 'TRUTH'

BUT SNOWFLAKE HAS?

I'll pass that on to SY/MET so they may ask Snowflake about that.

Snowflake's 'evidence' may crack this case wide open, in a heartbeat.

Let's hope so!